The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule for new coal plants has been called a “war on coal” because it will require the installation of costly, unproven carbon capture and sequestration — technology which many utilities can neither afford nor implement — resulting in a ban on the construction of new coal plants, according to the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE). CRE is calling for a change from a “war on coal” to a “war by coal” in which the coal industry exercises its legal rights.

EPA’s proposed rule for new coal plants has been called a “war on coal”. The “war on coal” occurs because the standard in the proposed rule can only be achieved by the installation of a costly technology called CCS, carbon capture and sequestration, which virtually no utility can neither afford nor implement and will result in a ban on the construction of new coal plants.

EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) has declined to review Sierra Club’s challenge of a permit issued by Region VI that the group said the agency rejected without adequate review whether to require carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology in the greenhouse gas (GHG) portion of the permit.

The board in its May 14 order in In Re: ExxonMobil Chemical Company Baytown Olefins Plant concluded that the agency “did not clearly err or abuse its discretion by eliminating CCS at step 4 of its [best available control technology (BACT)] analysis on the basis of consideration of several economic and environmental impacts, including the total cost of the control technology.”

With great fanfare, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule last fall that would require all newly built coal-fired power plants in the U.S. to install an expensive new technology called carbon capture and storage, or CCS. Although the technology has never been installed on a large-scale power plant anywhere in the world, it theoretically will separate the primary greenhouse gas—carbon dioxide—from the plant’s exhaust and pump it to underground reservoirs for storage.

Experience shows that green business subsidies are a green light for misallocation and inefficiency. Subsidy programs seem to prompt company leaders to think:

“Washington experts say this is a good idea. Let’s do it!”

“Yeehaw, we’re getting free money. Let’s blow the bank!”

Those sorts of thoughts seem to have steered Southern Company into building a very expressive boondoggle project in Mississippi. The clean coal plant is to include a complex carbon capture system with a 62-mile pipeline. The Washington Post reports:

Environmental Protection Agency policies resulting in the shutdown of coal-fired power plants will contribute to a 150 percent price hike for natural gas, accompanied by a 7 percent rise in electricity prices, according to government data.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that the accelerating rate of coal plant retirements will cause natural gas prices to rise from $3.44 per million British thermal units (Btu) in 2012 to $5.91 per million Btu in 2025. This would boost retail electricity rates for households and businesses from 9.8 cents per kilowatthour to 10.5 cents per kilowatthour — a 7 percent price jump by 2025.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday affirmed the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate air pollution from coal-burning power plants. The 6-to-2 decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hands the Obama administration what is arguably its biggest environmental victory in its effort to use the Clean Air Act as a tool to fight global warming and reduce carbon emissions.

At issue was whether the EPA could use what are known as good-neighbor rules to regulate emissions that cross state borders. In short, the Supreme Court ruled that a power plant in Ohio whose emissions blow east into New York is liable for the damage caused there, even if it’s hundreds of miles away from the source.

Expectations for the Coalition’s first budget were not high amongst environmental interest groups. Despite an election commitment to action on climate change and threatened species, there was a suspicion that the government might wriggle out of its promises. As the budget grew closer, and the government reiterated what a tough budget it was likely to be, those suspicions only grew.

When the budget was handed down last night environment groups were united in damning it. Among the cuts were the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, the National Water Commission, Carbon Capture and Storage funding, Landcare funding, CSIRO funding and alternative fuels funding.